Gun Control 2023 - ATF Shenanigans, States Fight Back!

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Congressional failure is not an excuse to circumvent the established constitutional system.

It doesn't though. The Constitution does not say that agencies like this cannot exist or enforce laws or even interpret laws. And I don't buy originalism, it is supposed to be somewhat of a living document.

It's delegated power. If Congress wants to strip them of their powers, they can still do so... if they can get their head out of their backside.

[Kernen]

Congressional failure is not an excuse to circumvent the established constitutional system.

It doesn't though. The Constitution does not say that agencies like this cannot exist or enforce laws or even interpret laws. And I don't buy originalism, it is supposed to be somewhat of a living document.

It's delegated power. If Congress wants to strip them of their powers, they can still do so... if they can get their head out of their backside.

And how does congress delegate power?

[Dimetrodon Empire]

It doesn't though. The Constitution does not say that agencies like this cannot exist or enforce laws or even interpret laws. And I don't buy originalism, it is supposed to be somewhat of a living document.

It's delegated power. If Congress wants to strip them of their powers, they can still do so... if they can get their head out of their backside.

And how does congress delegate power?

They already passed multiple pieces of legislation to do that, back in a time when Congress functioned.

It's hardly a constitutional crisis for the EPA to make a reasonable interpretation of a statute it is literally tasked with enforcing. Law enforcement, courts, and even presidents did that since the early days of the republic. Hell, judicial review isn't specified in the constitution yet there aren't really many people who view it as unconstitutional.

This idea that every legal question about interpretation and enforcement must come from a succeeding statute just for that purpose is nonsense. I doubt that would even be feasible, even if Congress was not a mess.

Like I said, if Congress doesn't like the EPA having power they themselves already gave it, and if they can get their head out of their ass, they can repeal those laws or pass a law that specifically places limits on it.

Legislatures are not the only source of new laws or the sole arbiter of how already passed laws will be interpreted in the future. They never were, nor will they ever be.

[Tarsonis]

Yes, but to a point. It's not meant to contribute to pointless gridlock.

It was reasonable in the early republic. Now it needs an overhaul.

I fail to see how it even protects rights or even the interests of anybody at this point. Especially in an era where both parties just engage in BS posturing, and the current state of the senate gives certain politicians even more of an opportunity to posture. It doesn't even help the constituents in those small states.

The Founders very much intended the US system lead to gridlock rather than allowing unilateral acts. The system was specifically designed that way.

It protects rights insofar as it prevents unelected agencies from acting without explicit legislative grant. If the legislature fails, there is a democratic process to avail yourself of. Nobody claimed democracy would result in perfect outcomes.

"We said our government would take you places, we never said it would be places you wanted to go.". The founders circa 1789 (probably)

[Dimetrodon Empire]

The Founders very much intended the US system lead to gridlock rather than allowing unilateral acts.

Not many unilateral acts would get through regardless. Even without the Senate, consensus amongst a large swath of representatives would be needed in a functional congress.

And it's kind of hard to say "that's what the founder's wanted" when gridlock in our history is not usually this bad and the founders had a general dislike towards centralized political factions. But even if that is true (and I highly doubt it), then their vision is flawed.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Good but you and others don't like it. Tell me if the second amendment is absolute why is no other? Why don't I have the right the to send threatening letters to elected officials and not get arrested?

Who can forget all the murders committed with Red Ryder bb guns (which are now banned in NJ, apparently).

Hey, the Red Ryder BB gun is dangerous. You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Firearms are fire arms, water is the opposite of fire. water arms aren't fire arms.

Checkmate.

Oh shi.....

If he only stopped before dumping that last mag, that furniture might have survived.

[American Legionaries]

Isn't the whole idea behind a constitutionally limited govt the very reason to inhibit democratic shenanigans as a check against encroachment on individual rights and privileges?

Yes, but to a point. It's not meant to contribute to pointless gridlock.

It was reasonable in the early republic. Now it needs an overhaul.

I fail to see how it even protects rights or even the interests of anybody at this point. Especially in an era where both parties just engage in BS posturing, and the current state of the senate gives certain politicians even more of an opportunity to posture. It doesn't even help the constituents in those small states.

Gridlock that prevents abuse is not pointless. And it serves the interests of, and protects the rights of, the people targeted for such abuse.

[The Two Jerseys]

And how does congress delegate power?

They already passed multiple pieces of legislation to do that, back in a time when Congress functioned.

It's hardly a constitutional crisis for the EPA to make a reasonable interpretation of a statute it is literally tasked with enforcing. Law enforcement, courts, and even presidents did that since the early days of the republic. Hell, judicial review isn't specified in the constitution yet there aren't really many people who view it as unconstitutional.

This idea that every legal question about interpretation and enforcement must come from a succeeding statute just for that purpose is nonsense. I doubt that would even be feasible, even if Congress was not a mess.

Like I said, if Congress doesn't like the EPA having power they themselves already gave it, and if they can get their head out of their ass, they can repeal those laws or pass a law that specifically places limits on it.

Legislatures are not the only source of new laws or the sole arbiter of how already passed laws will be interpreted in the future. They never were, nor will they ever be.

Congress also passed a law explicitly defining what a machine gun is, which clearly does not include the bump stocks and forced reset triggers that the AFT "interprets" to be machine guns. They've clearly exceeded their legal authority.

[Washington Resistance Army]

While I am not in favor of gun control, I am not in favor of a new Lochner era where any environmental or economic regulation that serves a purpose is just struck down.

It's worth pointing out that this isn't the direction the court is taking things, hence why the ruling was 9-0. It isn't the conservative justices just doing something dumb because it's what donors want, there are actual serious problems with executive agencies having given themselves near unlimited power that far exceeds their mandate as given by congress. Even if that overreach is done for a good reason (the EPA) it's still a very bad precedent to set.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

They already passed multiple pieces of legislation to do that, back in a time when Congress functioned.

It's hardly a constitutional crisis for the EPA to make a reasonable interpretation of a statute it is literally tasked with enforcing. Law enforcement, courts, and even presidents did that since the early days of the republic. Hell, judicial review isn't specified in the constitution yet there aren't really many people who view it as unconstitutional.

This idea that every legal question about interpretation and enforcement must come from a succeeding statute just for that purpose is nonsense. I doubt that would even be feasible, even if Congress was not a mess.

Like I said, if Congress doesn't like the EPA having power they themselves already gave it, and if they can get their head out of their ass, they can repeal those laws or pass a law that specifically places limits on it.

Legislatures are not the only source of new laws or the sole arbiter of how already passed laws will be interpreted in the future. They never were, nor will they ever be.

Congress also passed a law explicitly defining what a machine gun is, which clearly does not include the bump stocks and forced reset triggers that the AFT "interprets" to be machine guns. They've clearly exceeded their legal authority.

Yes, the AFT should abide by that law.

By interpretations, I mean when something appears vague, not direct conflict with the text. My post also was not in support of the AFT.

It isn't the conservative justices just doing something dumb because it's what donors want, there are actual serious problems with executive agencies having given themselves near unlimited power that far exceeds their mandate as given by congress. Even if that overreach is done for a good reason (the EPA) it's still a very bad precedent to set.

Maybe I jumped the gun, IDK. But the bold is what I am used to and expect, and for good reason. And I am not a fan of either party, especially when the "left" party is also full of neoliberal "centrists."

[Kernen]

And how does congress delegate power?

They already passed multiple pieces of legislation to do that, back in a time when Congress functioned.

It's hardly a constitutional crisis for the EPA to make a reasonable interpretation of a statute it is literally tasked with enforcing. Law enforcement, courts, and even presidents did that since the early days of the republic. Hell, judicial review isn't specified in the constitution yet there aren't really many people who view it as unconstitutional.

This idea that every legal question about interpretation and enforcement must come from a succeeding statute just for that purpose is nonsense. I doubt that would even be feasible, even if Congress was not a mess.

Like I said, if Congress doesn't like the EPA having power they themselves already gave it, and if they can get their head out of their ass, they can repeal those laws or pass a law that specifically places limits on it.

Legislatures are not the only source of new laws or the sole arbiter of how already passed laws will be interpreted in the future. They never were, nor will they ever be.

This is where you're wrong.

Congress does empower agencies via statute. As such, an agency is limited by that statute. Even by multiple statutes, but nonetheless by those statutes. They do not generate their own power, but are limited to the extent to which Congress gives them power. That's the entire premise of delegation of powers.

If the EPA or ATF did, in fact, restrain itself to the relevant statute, then yes. The agency wins. Nobody with any real understanding of US law argues otherwise. But in both cases, we have a ton of evidence that neither agency is narrowly doing so. The EPA took an L on this topic in fact.

Agencies do not generate their own source of law. That's not possible because their power to make law is constrained to explicitly only that which is delegated. It has to be, because congress and the executive have to delegate those powers they derive from the constitution in the first place.

The alternative source of law here is the judiciary, which can delegate power, but unless SCOTUS itself is delegating it, the courts are constrained by their creating statutes as well.

So, no. Agencies do not generate their own sources of law. They cannot exceed those delegations of power. And any effort to do so would be inherently unconstitutional, whether for the good of protecting wetlands or the evil of restraining civilian firearm rights.

You want to argue Chevron, well, that's another question entirely.

[Grinning Dragon]

So the numbskulls in Illinois have come up with HB3062 in which all lawsuits dealing with constitutional challenges to state statutes would have to be filed in either Cook County (i.e. Chicago) or Sangamon County (capitol area of springfield).
Well gee, I wonder why those two courts? Could it be because the judges in those courts suck and hate freedom? Nothing more than an attempt to keep unconstitutional measures on the books and make it much more difficult to challenge them in court.
I suspect this came about due to the judge in the southern district that shot down their unconstitutional weapon and mag ban and issued an injunction against the state.

[Gun Manufacturers]

So the numbskulls in Illinois have come up with HB3062 in which all lawsuits dealing with constitutional challenges to state statutes would have to be filed in either Cook County (i.e. Chicago) or Sangamon County (capitol area of springfield).
Well gee, I wonder why those two courts? Could it be because the judges in those courts suck and hate freedom? Nothing more than an attempt to keep unconstitutional measures on the books and make it much more difficult to challenge them in court.
I suspect this came about due to the judge in the southern district that shot down their unconstitutional weapon and mag ban and issued an injunction against the state.

They passed it.

It was being claimed that because plaintiffs would eventually end up in the Illinois Supreme court (either in Cook County or Sangamon County), the state is trying to "streamline" the process to prevent straining the resources of the AG on what they're calling "frivolous" lawsuits.

Scumbags.

[Thermodolia]

5th Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers all FPC’s Members

[The Two Jerseys]

So the numbskulls in Illinois have come up with HB3062 in which all lawsuits dealing with constitutional challenges to state statutes would have to be filed in either Cook County (i.e. Chicago) or Sangamon County (capitol area of springfield).
Well gee, I wonder why those two courts? Could it be because the judges in those courts suck and hate freedom? Nothing more than an attempt to keep unconstitutional measures on the books and make it much more difficult to challenge them in court.
I suspect this came about due to the judge in the southern district that shot down their unconstitutional weapon and mag ban and issued an injunction against the state.

They passed it.

It was being claimed that because plaintiffs would eventually end up in the Illinois Supreme court (either in Cook County or Sangamon County), the state is trying to "streamline" the process to prevent straining the resources of the AG on what they're calling "frivolous" lawsuits.

Scumbags.

These are the same people who claim that going to the DMV to get an ID so you can vote is too difficult, right?

[Dimetrodon Empire]

This is where you're wrong.

Congress does empower agencies via statute. As such, an agency is limited by that statute. Even by multiple statutes, but nonetheless by those statutes. They do not generate their own power, but are limited to the extent to which Congress gives them power. That's the entire premise of delegation of powers.

If the EPA or ATF did, in fact, restrain itself to the relevant statute, then yes. The agency wins. Nobody with any real understanding of US law argues otherwise. But in both cases, we have a ton of evidence that neither agency is narrowly doing so. The EPA took an L on this topic in fact.

Agencies do not generate their own source of law. That's not possible because their power to make law is constrained to explicitly only that which is delegated. It has to be, because congress and the executive have to delegate those powers they derive from the constitution in the first place.

The alternative source of law here is the judiciary, which can delegate power, but unless SCOTUS itself is delegating it, the courts are constrained by their creating statutes as well.

So, no. Agencies do not generate their own sources of law. They cannot exceed those delegations of power. And any effort to do so would be inherently unconstitutional, whether for the good of protecting wetlands or the evil of restraining civilian firearm rights.

You want to argue Chevron, well, that's another question entirely.

Like anything in U.S. law, there's lots of complexities and nuance that one must pay attention to, and I'm not a lawyer, so it is easy for people like me to get confused. But it involves politics that can effect me, which is why I try to pay attention to it + form opinions.

I think I agree with KAGAN, J., concurring opinion after reading this (which concurrent opinions of course are not binding, since it's not the majority).

It's concurring since it sides with the couple (who I also side with) but it rightfully states that there shouldn't be as large of an exclusion when it comes to wetlands.

The couple is in the right and the EPA was in the wrong in this instance, but I still think the majority went too far in the other direction.

[Galloism]

What direct, democratic legislative action?

Congress is completely broken. The Senate is even more undemocratic than it was in the early republic due to demographic changes and greater population disparities between states, both senators and representatives both engage in massive amounts of corruption and couldn't give a damn about what the people want. It often has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

There's nothing democratic about Congress in this day and age.

When it still functioned, it delegated powers to various agencies. While arguably not idea, it's better than the alternative now.

Chevron goes beyond delegated powers. I largely agree when it comes to delegated powers - if the statute says “<Agency> may use appropriate regulation to interpret and enforce this section”, that’s a delegated power and the court should not be in the business of saving congress from itself unless the agency is clearly acting in breach of the section.

But Chevron goes beyond that. As a doctrine, it says that any non-criminal law (that bit is important) being enforced by an agency that the agency’s interpretation of that law gets significant deference by the court unless it is “clearly unreasonable”. Even if the agency said exactly the opposite a year ago. This exists whether congress delegated the power or not.

I disagree with folks here that Chevron needs to be tossed entirely - congress can’t write clearly and we don’t want multiple fed policies in different regions dictated by local courts. But we do need to curb chevron to reduce abuse and increase regulatory certainty in the system.

[Kernen]

This is where you're wrong.

Congress does empower agencies via statute. As such, an agency is limited by that statute. Even by multiple statutes, but nonetheless by those statutes. They do not generate their own power, but are limited to the extent to which Congress gives them power. That's the entire premise of delegation of powers.

If the EPA or ATF did, in fact, restrain itself to the relevant statute, then yes. The agency wins. Nobody with any real understanding of US law argues otherwise. But in both cases, we have a ton of evidence that neither agency is narrowly doing so. The EPA took an L on this topic in fact.

Agencies do not generate their own source of law. That's not possible because their power to make law is constrained to explicitly only that which is delegated. It has to be, because congress and the executive have to delegate those powers they derive from the constitution in the first place.

The alternative source of law here is the judiciary, which can delegate power, but unless SCOTUS itself is delegating it, the courts are constrained by their creating statutes as well.

So, no. Agencies do not generate their own sources of law. They cannot exceed those delegations of power. And any effort to do so would be inherently unconstitutional, whether for the good of protecting wetlands or the evil of restraining civilian firearm rights.

You want to argue Chevron, well, that's another question entirely.

Like anything in U.S. law, there's lots of complexities and nuance that one must pay attention to, and I'm not a lawyer, so it is easy for people like me to get confused. But it involves politics that can effect me, which is why I try to pay attention to it + form opinions.

I think I agree with KAGAN, J., concurring opinion after reading this (which concurrent opinions of course are not binding, since it's not the majority).

It's concurring since it sides with the couple (who I also side with) but it rightfully states that there shouldn't be as large of an exclusion when it comes to wetlands.

The couple is in the right and the EPA was in the wrong in this instance, but I still think the majority went too far in the other direction.

I am an attorney, who has spent no small amount of time in administrative practice. That's exactly the logic the case law uses. You keep mixing up a pro Chevron policy argument with the constitutional basis for agencies in the first instance.

Don't. It just makes you sound like you don't understand the system.

[Grinning Dragon]

What direct, democratic legislative action?

Congress is completely broken. The Senate is even more undemocratic than it was in the early republic due to demographic changes and greater population disparities between states, both senators and representatives both engage in massive amounts of corruption and couldn't give a damn about what the people want. It often has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

There's nothing democratic about Congress in this day and age.

When it still functioned, it delegated powers to various agencies. While arguably not idea, it's better than the alternative now.

Chevron goes beyond delegated powers. I largely agree when it comes to delegated powers - if the statute says “<Agency> may use appropriate regulation to interpret and enforce this section”, that’s a delegated power and the court should not be in the business of saving congress from itself unless the agency is clearly acting in breach of the section.

But Chevron goes beyond that. As a doctrine, it says that any non-criminal law (that bit is important) being enforced by an agency that the agency’s interpretation of that law gets significant deference by the court unless it is “clearly unreasonable”. Even if the agency said exactly the opposite a year ago. This exists whether congress delegated the power or not.

I disagree with folks here that Chevron needs to be tossed entirely - congress can’t write clearly and we don’t want multiple fed policies in different regions dictated by local courts. But we do need to curb chevron to reduce abuse and increase regulatory certainty in the system.

Perhaps congress is purposely writing laws so vague knowing the administrative state is going to implement how they see it, since what congress really wants to pass has a difficult time getting other members on board?

The other issue is when the govt claims chevron in court and since most statutes have a punishment, the rule of lenity is almost ignored then they play this dance of tiers of scrutiny.

[Galloism]

Chevron goes beyond delegated powers. I largely agree when it comes to delegated powers - if the statute says “<Agency> may use appropriate regulation to interpret and enforce this section”, that’s a delegated power and the court should not be in the business of saving congress from itself unless the agency is clearly acting in breach of the section.

But Chevron goes beyond that. As a doctrine, it says that any non-criminal law (that bit is important) being enforced by an agency that the agency’s interpretation of that law gets significant deference by the court unless it is “clearly unreasonable”. Even if the agency said exactly the opposite a year ago. This exists whether congress delegated the power or not.

I disagree with folks here that Chevron needs to be tossed entirely - congress can’t write clearly and we don’t want multiple fed policies in different regions dictated by local courts. But we do need to curb chevron to reduce abuse and increase regulatory certainty in the system.

Perhaps congress is purposely writing laws so vague knowing the administrative state is going to implement how they see it, since what congress really wants to pass has a difficult time getting other members on board?

The other issue is when the govt claims chevron in court and since most statutes have a punishment, the rule of lenity is almost ignored then they play this dance of tiers of scrutiny.

Lenity is only for criminal law. Chevron does not apply to criminal law.

When discussing chevron, it’s regarding regulations with civil penalties, not criminal.

[Grinning Dragon]

Perhaps congress is purposely writing laws so vague knowing the administrative state is going to implement how they see it, since what congress really wants to pass has a difficult time getting other members on board?

The other issue is when the govt claims chevron in court and since most statutes have a punishment, the rule of lenity is almost ignored then they play this dance of tiers of scrutiny.

Lenity is only for criminal law. Chevron does not apply to criminal law.

When discussing chevron, it’s regarding regulations with civil penalties, not criminal.

Except when those quasi civil penalties embed criminal penalties, which seems to be the SOP of congress as of late. When it comes to challenges the default should always be in favor of rights, which is why chevron needs to be trashed, the administrative state really needs to know their place and go back to sitting in the back of the bus.

[Galloism]

Lenity is only for criminal law. Chevron does not apply to criminal law.

When discussing chevron, it’s regarding regulations with civil penalties, not criminal.

Except when those quasi civil penalties embed criminal penalties, which seems to be the SOP of congress as of late. When it comes to challenges the default should always be in favor of rights, which is why chevron needs to be trashed, the administrative state really needs to know their place and go back to sitting in the back of the bus.

As soon as you cross into criminal law, Chevron no longer applies.

With that understanding in mind, it’s entirely possible that when a statute has both civil and criminal penalties, the civil might be upheld due to Chevron, while criminal is dismissed under the rule of lenity.

[Grinning Dragon]

5th Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers all FPC’s Members

One can even join the FPC now and still get covered.
Also to note, if you read the order from the merit panel in the 5th circuit, Maxim Defense customers and possible customers are also covered.
So it would seem those who bought anything by Maxim Defense will also be covered.

[American Legionaries]

5th Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers all FPC’s Members

One can even join the FPC now and still get covered.
Also to note, if you read the order from the merit panel in the 5th circuit, Maxim Defense customers and possible customers are also covered.
So it would seem those who bought anything by Maxim Defense will also be covered.

Possible customers? So can I tell the ATF to eat shit because I've thought about buying some of Maxim Defense's products?